A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 28th 12, 07:57 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Nico V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further,
since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.
I do know something about mechanical engineering, which involves
masses of inertia, centers of gravity and centrifugal forces.

Here comes a summary of what I thought of that night:

The point in space I try to prove is a point I like to call 'Dé
Blondine'.

First, I want you to imagine a balloon filled with water and tied with
a knot. An undeniable child's play. If you hold the balloon by it's
knot and you spin the balloon around your fingers, then the balloon
will soon have a triangular shape. One side of the triangle most far
away from your fingers and two sides pointing at your fingers. What
you do by spinning the balloon is creating a centrifugal force on the
water, then the center of gravity of the water will move to the part
of the balloon most far away from your fingers, also creating a moment
of inertia.
Second, I want you to dip the same balloon in water and then to rotate
the balloon the same way as described above. Then watch the water.
Most of the water wil start leaving the balloon where centrifugal
forces are highest and that's a point on the balloon furthest from
your fingers.

I always wondered why the continents weren't concentrated around the
equator. Because, when centrifugal forces due to the Earth's rotation
do it's work, it means that landmasses would be concentrated around
the equator and that's not reality.
This should work just as with the balloon dipped in water and being
rotated.

Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America,
South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape.
Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think
forming a triangle.
So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the
part of the continent facing the north-pole.
NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the
flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps,
also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps.
(spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved)

Now, if you link the triangular shape of the rotating balloon with the
triangular shape of the continents, then you could probably also
figure out that when you look up in the air at the center of gravity
of Antarctica, you should see 'Dé Blondine'.
I know that a spinning balloon doesn't look like a spinning Earth and
also, maybe I may not derive a point in space derived from triangular
shapes of the continents on earth, based on watching a spinning
balloon, but it seemed like an unlikely coincidence to me.
Also, I'm unable to comprehend what's the role of water when forming
continents.

So, why Antarctica? Antarctica is a very circular continent and seems
to be unifluenced by any centrifugal force. You have Earth's rotation,
highest at the equator an non-existing at the poles.
Then there might be a rotation around 'Dé Blondine', which results in
higher centrifugal force around north-pole than at south-pole, meaning
that Antarctica should push other continents to the north-pole and
also keeps it's circular shape. To be more specific: if the South-Pole
does not represent the center of gravity of Antarctica, then I'd like
to introduce the 'Southern Blondine'. The 'Northern Blondine' would be
positioned near the North-Pole and be on the same axis between 'Dé
Blondine' and the 'Southern Blondine', though being in-line with each
other.

The hypothesis continues, because if you overlook what I just wrote,
you could imagine that once the landmasses were concentrated up and
around Antarctica, or better: around the 'Southern Blondine'. And now
are they moving to be concentrated up and around the 'Northern
Blondine'.
Preservation is important, you prefer to put your food into the fridge
and freezer to keep the food longer fresh and tasty. Well, landmasses
should also preserve better in a cold region, like it once was around
the 'Southern Blondine'. In a later stage, even, when you consider the
ice from around the 'Northern Blondine', it should keep the moving
landmasses from moving to fast to the 'Northern Blondine'. And later
on ...
I could be speaking about intelligent design, but personally I
consider myself as not a very religious person, even the lesser
religion the better, due to cultural habits that's not always
possible. Zut.

The latitudinal partitioning of the landmasses is something I like to
describe as following: when a potter has finished a pot made of clay
and forgets the pot on the turntable, then the clay pot will fall
apart in different directions, almost chaotically.

How I'd like to prove this theory? The shape of the landmasses are
more or less clear to me, and what those shapes mean is also more or
less clear, but there must be something more. Other planets should
also have an axis that points to 'Dé Blondine'.
Perhaps the rings of Saturn reveal something pointing in that
direction.

I'm eager to know what you think of my theorie of 'Dé Blondine', does
it seem plausible and logical to you?

Thanks in advance,
Best regards,

Ve. Ni.
  #2  
Old May 28th 12, 08:35 PM posted to alt.astronomy
HVAC[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,114
Default Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasseson Earth

On 5/28/2012 2:57 PM, Nico V wrote:
Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further,
since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.




What you ARE, is a ****ing retard.






--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
  #3  
Old May 28th 12, 09:28 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,245
Default Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

NO IT DOESN'T! THE FORCES YOU PROPOSE WOULD BE TOO SMALL TO MATTER!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Nico V
wrote:

Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further,
since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.
I do know something about mechanical engineering, which involves
masses of inertia, centers of gravity and centrifugal forces.

Here comes a summary of what I thought of that night:

The point in space I try to prove is a point I like to call 'Dé
Blondine'.

First, I want you to imagine a balloon filled with water and tied with
a knot. An undeniable child's play. If you hold the balloon by it's
knot and you spin the balloon around your fingers, then the balloon
will soon have a triangular shape. One side of the triangle most far
away from your fingers and two sides pointing at your fingers. What
you do by spinning the balloon is creating a centrifugal force on the
water, then the center of gravity of the water will move to the part
of the balloon most far away from your fingers, also creating a moment
of inertia.
Second, I want you to dip the same balloon in water and then to rotate
the balloon the same way as described above. Then watch the water.
Most of the water wil start leaving the balloon where centrifugal
forces are highest and that's a point on the balloon furthest from
your fingers.

I always wondered why the continents weren't concentrated around the
equator. Because, when centrifugal forces due to the Earth's rotation
do it's work, it means that landmasses would be concentrated around
the equator and that's not reality.
This should work just as with the balloon dipped in water and being
rotated.

Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America,
South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape.
Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think
forming a triangle.
So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the
part of the continent facing the north-pole.
NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the
flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps,
also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps.
(spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved)

Now, if you link the triangular shape of the rotating balloon with the
triangular shape of the continents, then you could probably also
figure out that when you look up in the air at the center of gravity
of Antarctica, you should see 'Dé Blondine'.
I know that a spinning balloon doesn't look like a spinning Earth and
also, maybe I may not derive a point in space derived from triangular
shapes of the continents on earth, based on watching a spinning
balloon, but it seemed like an unlikely coincidence to me.
Also, I'm unable to comprehend what's the role of water when forming
continents.

So, why Antarctica? Antarctica is a very circular continent and seems
to be unifluenced by any centrifugal force. You have Earth's rotation,
highest at the equator an non-existing at the poles.
Then there might be a rotation around 'Dé Blondine', which results in
higher centrifugal force around north-pole than at south-pole, meaning
that Antarctica should push other continents to the north-pole and
also keeps it's circular shape. To be more specific: if the South-Pole
does not represent the center of gravity of Antarctica, then I'd like
to introduce the 'Southern Blondine'. The 'Northern Blondine' would be
positioned near the North-Pole and be on the same axis between 'Dé
Blondine' and the 'Southern Blondine', though being in-line with each
other.

The hypothesis continues, because if you overlook what I just wrote,
you could imagine that once the landmasses were concentrated up and
around Antarctica, or better: around the 'Southern Blondine'. And now
are they moving to be concentrated up and around the 'Northern
Blondine'.
Preservation is important, you prefer to put your food into the fridge
and freezer to keep the food longer fresh and tasty. Well, landmasses
should also preserve better in a cold region, like it once was around
the 'Southern Blondine'. In a later stage, even, when you consider the
ice from around the 'Northern Blondine', it should keep the moving
landmasses from moving to fast to the 'Northern Blondine'. And later
on ...
I could be speaking about intelligent design, but personally I
consider myself as not a very religious person, even the lesser
religion the better, due to cultural habits that's not always
possible. Zut.

The latitudinal partitioning of the landmasses is something I like to
describe as following: when a potter has finished a pot made of clay
and forgets the pot on the turntable, then the clay pot will fall
apart in different directions, almost chaotically.

How I'd like to prove this theory? The shape of the landmasses are
more or less clear to me, and what those shapes mean is also more or
less clear, but there must be something more. Other planets should
also have an axis that points to 'Dé Blondine'.
Perhaps the rings of Saturn reveal something pointing in that
direction.

I'm eager to know what you think of my theorie of 'Dé Blondine', does
it seem plausible and logical to you?

Thanks in advance,
Best regards,

Ve. Ni.

  #4  
Old May 28th 12, 09:30 PM posted to alt.astronomy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,245
Default Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

HE'S A MECH ENG WHO HAS DREAMS OF GEOLOGICAL PRIZES!

MUCH LIKE BEERT I'M AFRAID!

OR THAT LYING IDIOT CONRAD!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 28 May 2012 15:35:45 -0400, HVAC wrote:

On 5/28/2012 2:57 PM, Nico V wrote:
Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further,
since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.



What you ARE, is a ****ing retard.

  #5  
Old May 30th 12, 03:08 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Hägar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,511
Default Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth


"HVAC" wrote in message
...
On 5/28/2012 2:57 PM, Nico V wrote:
Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further,
since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.




What you ARE, is a ****ing retard.


Yet another victim of Severn Trent, like that rambling loon BeeertBrain ...


  #6  
Old May 31st 12, 02:07 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,655
Default Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth

On May 28, 2:57*pm, Nico V wrote:
Hi All,

A few nights ago I was thinking about a hypothetical theory. The full
explanation will be below, but as a short introduction I think Earth
doesn't only rotate around it's own axis of rotation and orbits the
sun, I'm guessing you also could derive a point in space where our
solar system rotates around, solely by studying the shapes of the
continents.

If this is an already existing theory, don't bother reading further,
since I don't want to hostage your precious time.

Before I continue, I must tell you I'm not an astronomer, nor a
geologist, not even a hobbyist in both areas. And I'm also not a
mathematician.
I do know something about mechanical engineering, which involves
masses of inertia, centers of gravity and centrifugal forces.

Here comes a summary of what I thought of that night:

The point in space I try to prove is a point I like to call 'Dé
Blondine'.

First, I want you to imagine a balloon filled with water and tied with
a knot. An undeniable child's play. If you hold the balloon by it's
knot and you spin the balloon around your fingers, then the balloon
will soon have a triangular shape. One side of the triangle most far
away from your fingers and two sides pointing at your fingers. What
you do by spinning the balloon is creating a centrifugal force on the
water, then the center of gravity of the water will move to the part
of the balloon most far away from your fingers, also creating a moment
of inertia.
Second, I want you to dip the same balloon in water and then to rotate
the balloon the same way as described above. Then watch the water.
Most of the water wil start leaving the balloon where centrifugal
forces are highest and that's a point on the balloon furthest from
your fingers.

I always wondered why the continents weren't concentrated around the
equator. Because, when centrifugal forces due to the Earth's rotation
do it's work, it means that landmasses would be concentrated around
the equator and that's not reality.
This should work just as with the balloon dipped in water and being
rotated.

Then, if you consider the shapes of the continents, North-America,
South-America, Africa and Asia have more or less triangular shape.
Europe could fit in the triangle of Asia and Australia is what I think
forming a triangle.
So, the triangular continents all have it's center of gravity at the
part of the continent facing the north-pole.
NB: I didn't much take account of mountains, I just considered the
flat surface of the continents as seen on Google Maps and other maps,
also trying to keep in mind the projection-method used on those maps.
(spherish Earth -- flat rectangle map, perhaps Mercator is involved)

Now, if you link the triangular shape of the rotating balloon with the
triangular shape of the continents, then you could probably also
figure out that when you look up in the air at the center of gravity
of Antarctica, you should see 'Dé Blondine'.
I know that a spinning balloon doesn't look like a spinning Earth and
also, maybe I may not derive a point in space derived from triangular
shapes of the continents on earth, based on watching a spinning
balloon, but it seemed like an unlikely coincidence to me.
Also, I'm unable to comprehend what's the role of water when forming
continents.

So, why Antarctica? Antarctica is a very circular continent and seems
to be unifluenced by any centrifugal force. You have Earth's rotation,
highest at the equator an non-existing at the poles.
Then there might be a rotation around 'Dé Blondine', which results in
higher centrifugal force around north-pole than at south-pole, meaning
that Antarctica should push other continents to the north-pole and
also keeps it's circular shape. To be more specific: if the South-Pole
does not represent the center of gravity of Antarctica, then I'd like
to introduce the 'Southern Blondine'. The 'Northern Blondine' would be
positioned near the North-Pole and be on the same axis between 'Dé
Blondine' and the 'Southern Blondine', though being in-line with each
other.

The hypothesis continues, because if you overlook what I just wrote,
you could imagine that once the landmasses were concentrated up and
around Antarctica, or better: around the 'Southern Blondine'. And now
are they moving to be concentrated up and around the 'Northern
Blondine'.
Preservation is important, you prefer to put your food into the fridge
and freezer to keep the food longer fresh and tasty. Well, landmasses
should also preserve better in a cold region, like it once was around
the 'Southern Blondine'. In a later stage, even, when you consider the
ice from around the 'Northern Blondine', it should keep the moving
landmasses from moving to fast to the 'Northern Blondine'. And later
on ...
I could be speaking about intelligent design, but personally I
consider myself as not a very religious person, even the lesser
religion the better, due to cultural habits that's not always
possible. Zut.

The latitudinal partitioning of the landmasses is something I like to
describe as following: when a potter has finished a pot made of clay
and forgets the pot on the turntable, then the clay pot will fall
apart in different directions, almost chaotically.

How I'd like to prove this theory? The shape of the landmasses are
more or less clear to me, and what those shapes mean is also more or
less clear, but there must be something more. Other planets should
also have an axis that points to 'Dé Blondine'.
Perhaps the rings of Saturn reveal something pointing in that
direction.

I'm eager to know what you think of my theorie of 'Dé Blondine', does
it seem plausible and logical to you?

Thanks in advance,
Best regards,

Ve. Ni.


Nico Best to keep in mind "gravity and inertia are two sides to the
same coin. That the Earth's crust is shifting as I type. South America
and Africa were once one. When the Earth was all molten rock it had no
water on its surface . When it had a solid surface water that was
locked deep underground vented out everywhere in the form of steam.The
Earth's surface was not smooth when cooled it had basins,and mountain
ranges.Some mountain ranges so high water could neve reach (like
Swiss Alps,and Rocky mountains.Mount Everest was much higher,but
eroded by heavy air(steam) Nico its not possible to picture the
surface 2.5 billion years ago when we know that Greenland is moving
west by inch a year..Get the picture TreBert
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth Nico V Amateur Astronomy 10 July 3rd 12 07:31 PM
Moments of Inertia and the Shape of Continents and Landmasses on Earth Nico V Astronomy Misc 0 May 28th 12 07:56 PM
Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study (Forwarded) Nog Policy 5 November 21st 05 10:40 PM
Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 November 18th 05 04:15 AM
Early Earth Likely Had Continents And Was Habitable, Says New Study(Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 November 18th 05 03:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.